RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Poonambhai Shanabhai Valand Decd. – Appellant
Versus
Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Parsana – Respondent
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present second appeal is filed by the appellants-original plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and order by the Addl. District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17/2014 dated 22.4.2016 confirming the judgment and order below Exh. 17 in Special Civil Suit No. 514/2010 by the Sr. Civil Judge, Ahmedabd (Rural) dated 28.12.2014 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation posing the following substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether the plaintiffs have proved their case independently by showing that the plaint of the plaintiffs discloses the cause of action?
(ii) Whether the plaint of the plaintiffs is time barred and whether it falls within the period of limitation?
(iii) Whether is it possible for the trial court to decide the issue of concoction of power-of-attorney without adjudicating the same?
2. Heard learned counsel Shri Vijay Patel appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel for respondent No. 1.
3. Learned counsel Shri Patel referred to the background of facts and submitted that both the courts bel
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy rep. by Gpa Laxmi Narayan Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy & ors.
Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel & anr. v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel & ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.